The Northern Express Herald
Listener
Opinion

Law & Society: Social media ban for kids? The name is wrong and the bill is flawed

Opinion by
David Harvey is a retired district court judge

There is little doubt that tech-savvy under-16s will work out ways to circumvent age restrictions. Photo / Getty Images

The Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill has been touted as a way of preventing people aged under 16 from accessing social media platforms, according to publicity and indeed its proponents in the National Party.

Under this bill, social media platforms will be required to take reasonable steps to put in place an age-verification system. If a proposed user cannot verify their age as over 16, they can’t open an account.

But a careful reading says otherwise of the proposed bill, which is currently a private member’s bill and will not be considered unless it is drawn from the “biscuit tin”, a form of legislative lottery.

The critical definition within the bill is that of an “age-restricted social media platform”. A social media platform has a specific definition which does not include all applications available on the internet. WhatsApp, for example, would be unlikely to fulfil the definition, although the bill does allow for such platforms to be designated in the regulations as social media platforms.

The fact that the bill states access will be restricted only to platforms that are designated by the minister immediately narrows the focus.

It means the bill does not take people under the age of 16 off line in the sense that they will be unable to access any social media platforms.

There is no language in the bill that suggests that all social media platforms must have an age verification system, or language that states that any person under the age of 16 is prohibited from accessing a social media platform.

Should the bill become law, the battleground will be in persuading or dissuading the minister from designating a social media platform as age-restricted.

Clearly, the media reports about the proposed policy have been erroneous and lacking in nuance. The responsibility for this lies primarily in the hands of media who have headlined the proposal as a “social media ban”.

It would have been helpful had it been made clear that the bill would not automatically apply to all social media platforms but only to those which fulfilled the requirements set out.